Thursday, October 27, 2005

The key points

I always find that when ExPat and I get into these non-violence debates that I always have too much to respond about to not put in the form of a post, but I do love seeing all the other responses to all of this, too. Here are some responses I had to ExPat's latest offering:

"For those of you that worked through gurufrisbee's thoughtful response entitled, "My final shots for a while" will know that he passionately cares about non-violence and believes it should be the overriding factor in American foreign policy. "
* Actually I believe it should be the overriding factor in EVERY human's life as related to others, but that would certainly include all nations, including America, and their foreign policies.

"Because either "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." or we don't.The key phrase is "all men" ..."
* I disagree. I believe the key phrase here is "We". This is a document of INDEPENDENCE. It's talking about the foundation of OUR COUNTRY. It's not a manifesto for the world or a declaration of war on the world. It's about our country being free to establish it's own destiny and it's own sense of what we wanted for our own country. It's not about setting foreign policy - it's about being free from other's oppressive foreign policy being set upon us.

"It is the height of hypocrisy and smacks of racism. "
* I don't believe that is true either. While I hope for the same kind of freedom and rights for others, if I truly believe in freedom and independence for all, I cannot assume that my way of government is the only way and those who don't practice deserve to be slaughtered so they will change to it. That's asinine and truly hypocritical and smacks of egotism to the highest degree.

"Which brings us to the second part of the above clause in the Declaration of Independence, "--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.""
* This is again not a declaration of foreign policy, but a reflection on the situation that was currently at hand when the document was written. And it was ENTIRELY about America and our right at that time to abolish the rule of England over us. If it is the right to alter or abolish it, it is also their right to keep and accept it. And even if I accepted all of this as the blueprint for foreign policy, it never states a right to kill to achieve these desires.

"I will immediately grant gurufrisbee and all his supporters that non-violence resistance is superior to violence"
* DONE! That IS the issue, plain and simple.

", but sometimes not an option."
* Yes, in self defense. Otherwise, it is always an option.

" It is clear that with the above countries, violent overthrow of the existing government is the only option. Non-violence has been tried and been violently put down."
* That is most definitely not clear. You try again. Just because it's the right thing, doesn't make it easy to do and doesn't mean it will always work on the first try.

"The non-violence as a foreign policy leaves me without a positive option."
* No, it IS the positive option. Violence, murder, torture, destruction, pain, injury, suffering, death - those are the NEGATIVE options and those are the GUARANTEES with a pro-violence policy.

" What can you promise it will do?"
* Keep me from becoming a murderer. Where your plan ensures the exact opposite.

""An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." It is an excellent proverb to live by, but remember that eye for an eye is a warning for the initial attacker, not the defender. "
* It's a warning for BOTH. You don't get blind losing ONE eye. The whole world becomes blind becomes one eye is exchanged for another which is exchanged for the second eye which is exchanged for the other second eye. There is no "defender" here - there are only ALL "attacker"s.